Yogis Without Borders 77
and the primordial status of prakṛti. It is true that ākāśa might traditionally be
seen as the origin of the material cosmos. According to Sāṃkhya, it is the first
and most subtle of the five mahābhūtas (gross elements) and thus gives rise to the
four subsequent forms of matter, and this position is also articulated in certain
Upaniṣadic and Vedāntin passages that name ākāśa as the source of gross mate-
riality. However, Vivekananda claims much more than this. In his conception,
ākāśa becomes identical with mūlaprakṛti, the primordial matter to which all cre-
ation reverts at the time of cosmic dissolution. This conception is not generally
substantiated by Indian sources.
Whence, then, this preoccupation with “Akasha”? It should be noted that, for
Vivekananda, ākāśa is directly equivalent to the Western notion of ether, both in
its classical and modern scientific form. This is not in itself surprising or overly
interesting in that “ether” had previously been established as a common trans-
lation for “ākāśa” by Indologists and the two terms had also been identified in
a multitude of Theosophical writings. However, it is only in the Theosophical
texts that this identification is understood to imply a particular cosmogonic role.
Indeed, Vivekananda’s otherwise odd conception of ākāśa’s role as primordial
matter becomes much clearer when one considers the following passage from
Blavatsky’s Isis Unveiled:
The modern Ether; not such as is recognized by our scientists, but such as
it was known to the ancient philosophers, long before the time of Moses;
Ether, with all its mysterious and occult properties, containing in itself the
germs of universal creation... . Electricity, magnetism, heat, light, and
chemical action are so little understood even now that fresh acts are con-
stantly widening the range of our knowledge. Who knows where ends the
power of this protean giant— Ether; or whence its mysterious origin?—
Who, we mean, that denies the spirit that works in it and evolves out of it
all visible forms?^50Given Vivekananda’s general lack of respect for Theosophy, it is unlikely that he
adopted this notion directly from Blavatsky. However, Theosophy had by this time
become so diffuse in Indian intellectual circles that it is not unlikely that he might
have picked it up from a more loosely affiliated source. Vivekananda’s awareness
of more traditional Indian cosmologies, especially with respect to notions of sub-
tle embodiment, is evident and his appeal to them unavoidable when he is faced
with the task of explaining the states of yogic meditation. However, it is difficult
to reconcile such explanations with his references to the ākāśa/ prāṇa model of
materiality.^51 We are thus presented with an interesting turn of events: Blavatsky,
who was so fond of occultism that she eventually caused a rift in the Theosophical